宏观深度报告：跨越百年的产能调整经验，如何从失衡到再平衡

Group 1: Historical Capacity Adjustment Cases - The report analyzes three historical cases of capacity adjustment: the Long Depression (1873-1896), the Great Depression (1929), and Japan's capacity reductions in the 1970s and 1990s, highlighting their implications for supply-demand rebalancing[4] - During the Long Depression, nominal wage growth in the U.S. was only 5.4%, while industrial output increased over 300%, leading to significant supply-demand imbalances[16] - The Great Depression saw a shift from non-intervention to government intervention, with policies like the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) aimed at stabilizing production and prices[36] Group 2: Economic Impacts and Policy Responses - The Long Depression resulted in a cumulative CPI decline of 29.9% in the U.S., with real GDP growth averaging 3.5% annually, indicating severe deflationary pressures[19] - The AAA reduced agricultural output significantly, with oat production dropping by 57% from 1932 to 1934, leading to a price increase of 207%[37] - NIRA aimed to stabilize industrial production by setting production quotas and minimum prices, although it faced legal challenges and was eventually deemed unconstitutional[41] Group 3: Lessons for Emerging Industries - The report suggests that capacity reduction and anti-monopoly measures may alternate in emerging industries, necessitating a regulatory framework to ensure fair competition[4] - Historical cases indicate that government intervention is generally more effective than market self-correction in addressing capacity imbalances, as seen in the U.S. response to the Great Depression[4] - The transition from a production-oriented to a consumption-oriented society can be facilitated by policies that improve labor rights and wages, as evidenced by labor movements during the Long Depression[4]